Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Servando vs. Philippine Steam
Servando vs. Philippine Steam
*
Nos. L-36481-2. October 23, 1982.
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c037176781610251e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 1/9
9/20/21, 9:39 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 117
________________
* SECOND DIVISION.
833
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c037176781610251e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 2/9
9/20/21, 9:39 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 117
834
ESCOLIN, J.:
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c037176781610251e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 3/9
9/20/21, 9:39 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 117
Clara Uy Bico—
1,528 cavans of rice valued
at P40,907.50;
835
Amparo Servando—
44 cartons of colored paper,
toys and general merchandise valued at P1,070.50;
as evidenced by1
the corresponding bills of lading issued by
the appellant.
Upon arrival of the vessel at Pulupandan in the morning
of November 18, 1963, the cargoes were discharged,
complete and in good order, unto the warehouse of the
Bureau of Customs. At about 2:00 in the afternoon of the
same day, said warehouse was razed by a fire of unknown
origin, destroying appellees' cargoes. Before the fire,
however, appellee
2
Uy Bico was able to take delivery of 907
cavans of rice. Appellees' claims for the value of said goods
were rejected by the appellant.
On the bases of the foregoing facts, the lower court
rendered a decision, the decretal portion of which reads as
follows:
________________
1 Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H.
2 Par. IV, Complaint; p. 23, Record on Appeal.
836
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c037176781610251e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 5/9
9/20/21, 9:39 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 117
back of the bills of lading; and that they did not sign the
same. This argument overlooks the pronouncement of this
Court in3 Ong Yiu vs. Court of Appeals, promulgated June
29, 1979 , where the same issue was resolved in this wise:
"While it may be true that petitioner had not signed the plane
ticket (Exh. '12'), he is nevertheless bound by the provisions
thereof. 'Such provisions have been held to be a part of the
contract of car-riage, and valid and binding upon the passenger
regardless of the latter's lack of knowledge or assent to the
regulation'. It is what is known as a contract of 'adhesion', in
regards which it has been said that contracts of adhesion wherein
one party imposes a ready made form of contract on the other, as
the plane ticket in the case at bar, are contracts not entirely
prohibited. The one who adheres to the contract is in reality free
to reject it entirely; if he adheres, he gives his consent."
(Tolentino, Civil Code, Vol. IV, 1962 Ed., p. 462, citing Mr. Justice
J.B.L. Reyes, Lawyer's Journal, Jan. 31, 1951, p. 49).
________________
3 91 SCRA 224.
837
________________
838
________________
6 43 Phil. 511.
839
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c037176781610251e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 8/9
9/20/21, 9:39 PM SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 117
——o0o——
https://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017c037176781610251e000d00d40059004a/t/?o=False 9/9